656 So. 2d 597 - Cottingham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We reject any suggestion that, for purposes of the rule announced in Vasilinda , payment of the costs and service charges required by section 47.191, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.060 is deemed to be made on the date of mailing rather than on the date of receipt by the clerk of the transferee court. We agree with appellant that a rule effecting transfer of venue upon mailing of the transfer fees, rather than on receipt of such fees by the transferee court, would be completely unworkable. If appellate jurisdiction transferred on the date of mailing, there would be a period of several days or weeks when appellate jurisdiction would have been effectively transferred, but no one would know it or be able to prove it— not the clerk, not the judge, not the parties, not the court. We believe that the only workable construction of Vasilinda requires payment of fees and costs for purposes of a change of venue in a civil case to occur when a check or other form of payment of the fees and costs are received by the transferee court, not when placed in the mail by one of the parties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cottingham v. State

2. “FOR PURPOSES OF THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN VASILINDA V. LOZANO, 631 SO.2D 1082 (FLA.1994), IS THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE TRANSFER FEES AND CHARGES THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF SUCH CHARGES BY THE TRANSFEREE COURT OR THE DATE OF MAILING BY THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAYMENT?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cottingham v. State